Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • In Which I Question My #UMC Membership Vows

    There’s been a great deal of talk about schism in the United Methodist Church (#UMC) over the last couple of days. It hasn’t disturbed me in the way it has disturbed many of my friends, but it has made me ask this question: Why?

    No, not why might we have schism. Why don’t I care more?

    I’ve said before that if I left the UMC, it would doubtless have something to do with apportionments. I don’t have a problem with the basic concept, and unlike many, my problem is not that some of my apportionments might support someone who takes some particular stance on homosexuality. I’m sorry, but in a complacent, self-satisfied, rich, apathetic, and unaware American church, a church that is spending much more on maintaining its institutions than on building the kingdom of God, I can’t convince myself that homosexuality is the most important issue we have. How we treat other people, yes. Institutional rules, no.

    Here’s an example. Via Allan Bevere (also an Energion author), I discovered the suggestion that the United Methodist Church officially embrace the Nicene Creed, which we apparently don’t. The problem? It would take us a minimum of eight years to accomplish this mission. Then we’d be protected from false doctrine, like all the other churches who embrace the Nicene Creed. Oops!

    Don’t get me wrong. I do, in fact, embrace that creed. I’m just thinking that having our general conference debate the issue for the next 8+ years isn’t really going to help us much.

    I think it’s my view of denominations. I think denominations are should be a good way for us to group our resources so we can be more effective in building the kingdom of God. Single congregations have some limitations in terms of resources, so they need to work together. I didn’t (and don’t) think it’s necessary or good for all our connections to be within our denomination. I don’t think it’s a good thing when we build our denomination instead of building the kingdom. I think that the amount of time, effort, and money, not to mention words, that is spent on institutional issues indicates that our priorities are not right.

    The question I’d ask about schism in the UMC is this: How can we get on with the work of the gospel with the least disruption?

    Let’s forget about who owns buildings, and who we like and who we don’t. Go about it in a Christ-like manner. Let people form the institutions they think they need. I personally doubt I’d like either half of a split UMC, but I don’t have to like it. I just have to find the place God calls me to minister. It’s as likely I could find a congregation where God called me to be after as before.

    And if you don’t mind, I’m a Christian first and a member of a United Methodist congregation second. As a Christian, I’m going to go right on embracing the Nicene Creed. Don’t go it alone? I’m not. There are hundreds of millions of Christians who do so along with me. We don’t need another eight year debate.

    That’s my primary loyalty. To the gospel. As long as I’m a part of a United Methodist congregation, I’ll support it with my prayers, presences, gifts, service, and witness. But if God calls or the institution falls, I’ll go right on following where the Lord leads as best as I can.

  • A Muslim Comment on the Mariam Yahya Ibrahim Ishag Case

    From time to time I hear the question regarding some act of terrorism, or by some act of a Muslim government: Where is the Muslim outrage?

    I first want to note that I find measuring online outrage to be a somewhat hopeless task. I am outraged at many things that I never manage to mention on my blog. My blogging has a great deal more to do with my current schedule than with my state of outrage.

    But I do want to call an article, Sudan Government Tells Young Christian Woman to Recant or Die, written by Harris Zafar. To quote, regarding her sentence:

    As a human of conscience, I see this as a clear violation of fundamental human rights. Moreover, as an Ahmadi Muslim, I find the actions of Sudan’s government incredibly disturbing. They claim not only to be administering Shariah Law that is allegedly a 100% Islamic constitution, but also that “it is not allowed at all for a Muslim to change his religion.”

    I found the entire article extremely interesting.

  • From My Editing Work: Greater Works

    From my reading in Meditations on According to John (forthcoming next week) by Herold Weiss, pp. 91, 92:

    … Jesus’ work was consummated when he was lifted up, on the third day, on the cross.

    It is, therefore, somewhat disconcerting to read the promise Jesus makes to those who believe in him: “He who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and even greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father” (14:12). The work of Jesus was to enact the sign of Jonah by living to do the will of God, something that Jonah had much difficulty in understanding and accepting. By contrast, Jesus understood and fully accepted the purpose of his life. He accomplished the work he was assigned. At the end he was able to truthfully say, “It is finished”. What greater work can be done by the one who believes in him? I don’t think the members of the Johannine community supposed that they would be performing miracles (dynamis) greater than those Jesus had performed. Rather, they saw themselves as witnesses to The Truth and understood that their hour would also come. At that time they would have to work out the sign that points to the work of the one glorified on the cross. Their food, that which sustained their lives, was their determination to transpose the words that Jesus had spoken to them into life-giving works. For them, his words were “spirit and life” (6:63) when incarnated into their lives. They were to give signs that called attention to the one who was in “the heart of the earth” for three days. In the lives of the faithful the connection of their works to their ultimate purpose in life must not be ambiguous.

    Jesus lived performing signs that pointed to the time when he would finish his work. Therefore the life of the Christian must provide signs that advertise the source of strength and vision for those who live by faith. Signs and faith must remain closely bound in the lives of the disciples of the one who is THE SIGN that must be seen and believed.

  • To a Generation yet to Be Born

    To a Generation yet to Be Born

    image

    This is my mother, who will be 96 at the end of May. She’s looking over a book titled Seeing the Psalter. She spent a good hour with it, commenting on methodology and various translations.

    How can she do this? Well, after years as a missionary nurse, she decided to take Hebrew and completed two years. She then taught herself Greek, with a little (remarkably little) help from me.

    She and my dad both passed on their love of Scripture to me. That’s Psalm 78:1-7 in action.

    When she was done looking over the book she took out some sheet music, went to the electronic keyboard and said, “Let’s have worship!” She led our small group of family and we shared God’s wonderful deeds (see Psalm 78 again).

    That’s how you share faith from one generation to the next.

  • Remembering Becky Lynn Black

    image

    As I’m sitting here on the porch at Dave Black’s place ther is one disappointment. I didnt come here earlier so that I could have met Becky Lynn.

    I feel like I know her from correspondence and from her book. She had an enormous impact on so many lives over the years.

    Might I commend to you her autobiography, which I published? It was the way I got to know her. I know she was a remarkable lady!

    P.S. I originally scheduled this for Monday morning, but it somehow failed to post.

  • Pericope Adulterae Conference

    image

    I have already been asked for my reaction a couple of times, and this conference was a great experience, so I definitely think it is worthwhile to reflect on it here a bit. For pictures, see posts by Dave Black and Thomas Hudgins.

    First why did I attend the conference? This was recreation for me. I didn’t have a book table or anything! I just went to learn and enjoy. I do, however, think this sort of conference is important. There is controversy about the passage, including a strong consensus of current scholarship that the passage is not Johannine. Pastors need to make a decision about whether to preach the passage, and if they do so, about how to deal with the controversy. I’ll make my own comments on these issues at the end of the post.

    The conference was well run, and unobtrusively emceed by David Alan Black. Dave’s assistant, Jacob Cerone, managed microphones during  Q/A times. There was a minimum of time during which people spoke without microphones. This is important in a conference.

    I give the content an A+. The speakers were good. They had published some substantial work on this passage (John 7:53-8:11) and they had something to say. Persuasiveness was another matter.

    The first speaker was John David Punch, who discussed internal evidence and why he believes the passage is authentically Johannine, but was intentionally removed from some manuscripts and their descendants.

    He was followed by Tommy Wasserman, who looked at some of the transmission history. The next morning, Jennifer Knust followed up and contined the same topic. (For a more detailed discussion of the content, see the two referenced posts in my first paragraph.)

    Chris Keith, whose blog I follow, provided an interesting challenge to the use of internal evidence in general, demonstrating how it could mislead. Finally, Dr.  Maurice Robinson presented evidence based both on his collation of manuscripts and on evidence of tight linkage with the rest of the gospel of John.

    Let me start from the end. My training in New Testament textual criticism was limited to one course and one independent study as an undergraduate, so you can take this for what it’s worth.

    Dr. Robinson was the most persuasive speaker. As evidence, I will point out that I walked into the conference rejecting the authenticity of the PA out of hand, and I am now persuaded that it is quite possible. This was entirely the result of Dr. Robinson’s presentation. While I appreciated Dr. Punch’s presentation, I did not find it convincing. It is only fair to note that I am prejudiced in favor of external evidence, though not overwhelmingly so.

    While Dr.  Robinson also dealt with internal evidence, and did so effectively, I did not ultimately find that convincing. What he did accomplish was to provide a possible, though not in my view probable, scenario for the removal of the PA from all Alexandrian manuscripts.

    His telling point, however, was simply that this is a reading that is supported by both western and Byzantine texts, with only the Alexandrians in opposition. A principle of textual criticism which I learned way back in those classes I took was that older evidence (not necessarily older manuscripts) and more geographically widespread evidence is better.

    So why don’t I change my position completely?

    First, I find the scenarios both for intentional deletion and for interpolation approximately equally possible, i.e., possible but not probable. An entire story going missing from a family of manuscripts seems odd to me, despite the explanation that it was omitted beacause it is skipped in the lectionary reading for Pentecost.

    This story is omitted from an extraordinary number of good manuscripts, some of which show signs of careful copying. I just don’t see that as probable. One of these explanations, or something similar,  must be true, but which or what?

    So under the circumstances I find myself moved into a largely undecided camp,  though still, possibly through mental inertia, tending to consider the passage non-Johannine.

    So what about preaching it? I would do so without hesitation. I would present the controversy briefly, because it exists, but I would try to keep from making the controversy central.

    There are two reasons for this. 1) It’s canonical. It is part of the text as accepted by the church. I do believe inspiration must come before authority as Scripture, but inspiration and authority are not the same thing. Canonization involves the church recognizing the inspiration and the (perhaps inherent) authority of the text. I don’t believe the author must be John for it to be inspired and/or authoritative. It can be both even if God chose another hand to provide it.

    Secondly, I do regard it as an authentic story of Jesus. This provides it’s own authenticity. If we can ask and answer the question of authenticity for any pericope of the New Testament, I believe we can do so for this one. I believe that answer would be “yes.” Even so, for authority in the church it would have to be accepted as canonical. (But it was! See #1!)

    What was most worthwhile to me was the interaction of the scholars and the methodology involved. That was worth the cost of the conference in itself. I didn’t discuss “persuasiveness” in the case of Drs. Wasserman and Knuth. They provided excellent presentations, but while they interested me in a number of ways, they did nothing to change my thinking. Dr. Keith was quite convincing, but in a sense he did as much damage to his own position as to the other side, leaving us to ponder how the external evidence would look with any internal evaluations rendered impotent.

    How the external evidence stacks up depends on a number of technical questions, including the weight one gives to Latin witnesses in the western tradition, what credence can be given to Codex Bezae,  and how much one favors Alexandrian witnwsses over others. Without further study, which I’m unlikely to do given that this is not my field, I’m not prepared to judge that. I will say that with support from two families of manuscripts, originality should not be dismissed automatically.

  • At Bethel Hill Baptist Church

    image

    I enjoyed sharing my testimony and Psalm 78:1-7, which is the theme text for my monistry, at Bethel Hill Baptist Church today. I want to thank Brother Jason Evans for allowing me some time in the service there.

    I was reminded of the importance of the body of Christ and the fellowship that we experience as well as the mutual support. One of my privileges in my work is the opportunity to visit many churches. For me a warm welcome is the rule and not an exception. There are many things that are so right in the church. Often we spend our time complaining about what is wrong and lose sight of how blessed we are.

    After I had shared, Jason Evans, one of the elders (they use a plurality of leadership), preached from Revelation
    11:15-19, “the kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of our Lord.” There is an end to suffering and a goal to be reached.

    image

  • The 5-Minute-a-Day Bible Reading Plan vs. My Dad’s Bible

    Some time ago I was invited to answer questions from a group of wonderful young people. They were invited to ask me any question they wanted. On about the third question, as they were discussing the background between them, I had my finger in a place in my Bible where I was going to start with my answer. One young man said, pointing at my Bible,”You know, it’s almost frightening the way you have somewhere to turn to in that thing.”

    I say that not to boast, but rather to say this. You know what’s really frightening? That this surprised him.

    When I try to answer Bible questions, I’m frequently asked just how one can get to know the Bible like I do. What it generally comes down to, however, is that they’d like me to provide them with something along the lines of a 5-minute-a-day plan. Now don’t get me wrong. There are plenty of Christians who could benefit from five minutes of Bible reading per day. It’s just that five minutes each day won’t get you to the point where you really know your Bible.

    Very few of us would spend that little time keeping up with our professional fields, and I note that Bible study is a part of my work. But while claiming that the things in the Bible are of eternal importance, we are often mysteriously uninterested in actually knowing what they are.

    Let me start with how I got to know my Bible as well as I do, and let me add that there are plenty of weaknesses in my knowledge of scripture. You see, it’s not my fault. I can’t claim superior spiritual reasons. I grew up with it. It all started with my Dad’s Bible.

    My Dad's Bible, one of many that he used over a lifetime. I'd often see him reading and marking them. He used this one toward the end of his life.
    My Dad’s Bible, one of many that he used over a lifetime. I’d often see him reading and marking them. He used this one toward the end of his life.

    Here are the key points:

    1. I saw my parents study their Bibles regularly, frequently, and for much more than five minutes at a time. It looked natural to me. Parents, if you want your children to read their Bibles, read yours. It will do you (and them) much more good than all the urging you can provide.
    2. I studied and memorized the Bible through church programs and in school. I memorized whole chapters. I read so much of the King James Version that I still tend to use a KJV concordance or do my #BibleGateway lookups in the KJV.
    3. I studied the Bible in college. I went out of my way to do extra reading either of or about the Bible. I took German reading and then did an independent readings course covering Old Testament textual criticism. I studied French and when it was time to write, I wrote about French translations of Hebrew poetry. I did a two quarter hour independent study of just the first chapter of Ezekiel.
    4. I asked myself what was important. If I claimed that God and my relationship with him was even moderately important in my life, I needed to spend time in touch with God through his Word.
    5. I continued reading. I even read for language maintenance while I was out of the church following seminary. When I returned, I was able to restart reading at the rate of a chapter a day in Greek.

    Boasting? God forbid that I should boast save in the grace of God that led my parents to instill these habit patterns in me and let me take an honest look at myself as I would be without him!

    My point is that if you want to know the Bible, there is no quick plan, no shortcuts, no easy osmosis method. You need to spend time with it. Prayerfully examine your priorities. If you are a parent, consider what you want to teach your children. Do you want them to think that Bible study is important? Study it. Let them see your priorities in action. Do you want them to grow up as praying people? Pray! Don’t be afraid to be spiritual and to talk about spiritual things.

  • On Ecclesiastes and Disagreeing with Authors

    Ecclesiastes: A Participatory Study GuideNo, not the authors of the biblical text, though that’s an interesting topic. I’m talking about disagreeing with a study guide author, in this case a study guide author I chose both to publish and then to use in my Sunday School class.

    One class member was surprised—not shocked, annoyed, or disturbed, but just surprised—that I would make those choices.

    More on that in a moment. What is it that I disagree on? Well, it is fairly simple and quite broad: authors, date, and the translation of the Hebrew word hebel. Those are the subjects we’ve covered in the first two chapters. I consider Solomonic authorship unlikely. It sounds to me more like someone later writing in a way that will suggest to his readers hearing this later literature in the light of the life and times of King Solomon. Incidentally, while I haven’t studied it that much, this could be a textual relationship, and the methods taught in chapter 2 could be used to discover whether there is, in fact, such a relationship, or if it’s just a relationship of ideas, or none at all. On hebel, I tend to read it more negatively than does the author of the study guide.

    This recalls to my mind some of the best times I had in college and graduate school. I would get together with a group of fellow students, sometimes with one of our professors, and we’d hash out issues. The goal wasn’t to find people you agreed with. That was pointless. The goal was to find brilliant people who thought differently than you did. Then you’d argue out the details and you’d all learn new things. The only time disagreement was a problem was when someone couldn’t be reasonably gracious about it. Vigorous disagreement and a spirited defense of one’s ideas was good. We tried not to get personal, and generally succeeded.

    What I told my class was that agreeing with me wasn’t even a consideration in choosing what book to publish. If it slipped in, it could just as well be a negative as a positive.

    These first two chapters of the Ecclesiastes study guide are brilliant, in my view, because they present views that will be controversial in many quarters, and they do so thoroughly, but in a way that a serious non-specialist can read and understand. You don’t just learn what the author’s opinion is and the names of some people who oppose it. You learn why he made those choices. The introduction to intertextuality is also excellent and gets Bible students to think of things that we often neglect. Just how do two texts/passages relate? Which might have influence the other? That involves sequence and availability. Which was written first? Is it likely that the earlier work was available to the later writer? What characteristics would show that two texts were related?

    People from all parts of the theological and spiritual spectrum have an unfortunate tendency to read things they find agreeable. I’m hoping that through both teaching and publishing, I can get them to look at things that are very different. This is not simply to get an idea of the spectrum of ideas. It’s also so that people learn why. In the 21st century it is unrealistic for pastors to assume people won’t get exposed to these other viewpoints. Yet there are still pastors who think they can somehow protect their congregations from discovering this fact.

    Bible students all too frequently simply accept what their study Bibles, their pastors, or some Bible teacher says as to authorship, dating, relationships between texts, and interpretation. They don’t understand why those things happen. This guide is attempting to teach people how to examine the nuts and bolts of the process, how to make such determinations for themselves.

    I was reminded of the conversation in class during the sermon. My pastor was preaching from Matthew 5, including the portions that discuss divorce, lust, and adultery. I happened to agree with what he drew from the text, but I noticed that it would be nearly impossible for people in the congregation to rebuild his logic. It’s likely a bit much to expect a pastor to get any of that “other stuff” across in a 20-25 minute homily, but I think it is unfortunate that for many congregants, that one discussion will be all that they learn about that passage. They will go home with an interpretation (assuming they remember it), but will be unable to defend it, and would be unable to reproduce it or apply the same principles to another text.

    I truly don’t look for authors who agree with me. I look for authors who will educate, because education in turn empowers people to take action.

  • The Authority of the Longer Ending of Mark

    Here’s an interesting post on the longer ending of Mark and snake handling. (HT: Dave Black Online, Why Four Gospels?)

    There’s obviously a serious question about hermeneutics lurking in the discussion, but what I would like to see discussed is just what text of Mark is authoritative. We tend to assume that what we want is the most original text. What did Mark write?

    But we count as scripture what was recognized by the church councils as scripture. (I ignore here whatever reasons they may have had for their choice.) The Gospel of Mary or the Gospel of Peter are not authoritative, but Mark is. What text of Mark were the church fathers looking at when they made it canonical? Does that matter?

    I think it would relate (in a distant way) to the question of whether a gospel retains its authority if one thinks it was authored by someone other than the traditional one. If the church fathers canonized a gospel they believe to have been written by Mark, and then it turns out he didn’t write it, should their decision be reviewed?

    I ask these questions because we often try to dodge doctrinal difficulties through textual criticism. I think that is not always (or often) the right approach. It has its value, but creates its own difficulties.

    Worth thinking on, I think.